You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

[Mito]

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.”

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

 

[Kvothe]

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.”

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

Trust us, we know what's best for you.

 

[Max23]

Del Bigtree had a nice take about it (Watch – The Highwire). If you are too stupid to understand research, why would you read the Forbes magazine?
Doctors are not a reliable source any more either. The next article is about pillows recommended by a doctor, it must be incorrect.

 

[Dave Clark]

None of us would be on this or any forum if we didn't do our own research. That is exactly what forums are for.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

It is probably true, but not for the reasons presumed.

Doing "your own research" is not as harmful as it might be pointless. Many try and compare data and get to nothing but an opinion from considering both opposing sides and data down the middle too.

In other words science or research can almost always be considered part fraud or bias anyways no matter who is doing it or where because the potential for differing outcomes always exists.

As long as an outcome can differ even if all controls are equalized there is always room for someone to jump to polarized "not true" or "absolutely true" based on any propped up research or the like.

Plus in my own experience trying to endlessly decide based upon research on whether something would be "good" for me or not in any given context just creates frustration and confusion in the wild, wild, west of science. I think experimentation sometimes ought to be taken before worrying about any correlations or causations in any science done by anyone, especially since we have authoritarian-esque science/business/etc. telling us something can be both good and bad depending on the circumstances you want to consider.

It may sound crazy, but experimenting is probably the only way to truly know the full picture, which means that any amount of science only gets you so far if there is no real world application on a different plane than just "lab studies" and other possible controlled situations and factors that may not work out as such outside of them the same ways -- also depends on what any given scientist wants to consider relevant/word something a certain way/etc.

Every truth does not need a paper confirming it in some way just as every lie doesn't have to lack one trying passing it off as such.

Plus with so many variables and testing methods and etc. and etc. and etc. it can be anything from downright fraud to a half-truth to a circumstantial advantage in certain contexts.

Since there is no "silver bullet super science" I am left with sensible ideas and some of those who uncover or peel back the layers of some fraud or ill-will/deception in medical practices and such (like Ray for example).

Not that any contrarian if you will is perfectly right at all times, but I am more inclined to think that those willing to say something against the "mainstream" of anything in a way that makes sense to one may just have reasoning behind it that is at least worth considering sometimes, "scientific" or not.

The worst thing about "science debating" is probably someone holding up a mighty piece of research as if doing such nullifies anything contrary to it, either in experience or other research, like the science piece is a "weapon" in a battle against another person and you must then wield your mightier piece of science data that can crush theirs. I am not anti-science if it seems that way but it feels a bit silly or foolish to turn a possibility of something from a piece of data in to a debate on then "who is the right one" when that does nothing but miss the mark on what research really is about -- trial and error and experience, not arriving at a bold "right" or "wrong" and ending everything at that until the fancier article proves the less fancy one "wrong" somehow.

Probably should not put science on a pedestal when it is the experience that should hold up the evidence/science rather than the science or authority trying to dictate the (potential) experience to be had overall.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The article is written by Ethan Siegal. This man-

That's not just some random image pulled off the internet. That's the photo he (or Forbes) chose to be displayed for his publicly available profile.

Ethan Siegel

 

[Lejeboca]

The article is written by Ethan Siegal. This man-

View attachment 18823

That's not just some random image pulled off the internet. That's the photo he (or Forbes) chose to be displayed for his publicly available profile.

Ethan Siegel

The crown shows that he is a "Senior contributor" at Forbes.

 

[Terma]

Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.

Always end a sermon with a veiled threat after "legitimate" and "overwhelming", that was current dogma in a nutshell, concentrate authority sideline opinions keep people voluntarily disempowered but nevermind, what about the process that picked those experts and retains dangerous people with cartoonishly inaccurate models? You can word any situation in terms of "unnecessary suffering" - so how can official position be to avoid prophylactic medicines? We fortify foods and fluoridate our water and he seems happy about that. The professional bias is predictable, now how do you get someone like this to see they're defending gross negligence and incompetence? I'm an amateur sheep herder therefore have no opinion of value.

 

[postman]

Technocracy is a nightmare. These people are extreme authoritarians masquerading as liberals.

 

[Tarmander]

Crazy

They don't get that the reason you do your own research is because it increases your dopamine and propels you towards your goals and this keeps you adaptable

Of course you will be wrong, but in the long term you are right

These are just stupid intellectuals who don't understand meta

 

[tankasnowgod]

They don't get that the reason you do your own research is because it increases your dopamine and propels you towards your goals and this keeps you adaptable

I don't think the article was written for those who question the official narrative and dig deeper. I think it's almost a taunt at those who look to Forbes for answers.

Why else would they feature a shirtless photo of the author with a crown only slightly less realistic than the ones you used to get at Burger King as the author?

They know their audience will buy anything they tell them, and are simply praising them for being obedient.